No, it doesn't brute force every possible combination. You can perform an operation on a superposition of all possible k-bit strings, but you can't actually get all of the 2^k outcomes of that operation. If you measure the result, you'll get one of the 2^k outcomes at random.
Basically you start from that superposition of k-bit strings, then you apply some operations to that state so that all of the the correct answers are in phase with each other and constructively interfere. Effectively, you can only apply this kind of speed-up if you can exploit the numerical properties of the problem to ensure that this happens.
You also forgot to factor in the cost of money. I.e., if you banked the $5000 instead, you'd have that much more money at the end of the car ownership period. In 10 years at 7%, that $5000 becomes almost $10,000 (depending on how you compound the interest.)
Yeah... um.... I don't think you should be using 7% for personal finance TVM calculations right now.
Here's a paraphrase of what the juror with the CCIE said:
As he read the situation, Childs was used to getting away with doing what he wanted because he had a weak boss who didn't interfere with him running things as he pleased. However, the situation started when Childs was told by the higher-ups that he was being reassigned and needed to give them the passwords and he responded by giving them fake passwords. The next day he sent an email saying something like "I'm sure you're all trying to get into the system right now."
By this account, it looks an awful lot like he tried to maintain the status quo in his position by the old joke that a difficult to maintain system is a form of job security. There was also the part where he fled to Nevada and withdrew $10,000, which is what got him designated as a flight risk and has kept him in jail for the duration of his trial.
I agree that it's inevitable, but I believe I have the solution. We should fight for legally protected pseudonymity which can only be breached by court order.
I think you're underestimating the amount of cocaine that goes into creating a new dress design. They'll probably be lucky if they break even.
Cocaine is a plant product and only expensive because of an artificial government-enforced monopoly, the exact same as the dress. Remove such monopolies and both recreational substances and fancy dresses become cheap enough for everyone to afford.
To be honest, if drugs weren't artificially scarce, I think that fashion designers and other conspicuous consumption types would move on to things that are genuinely scarce. The entire thing is driven by displaying affluence and people buy the clothes to buy a share in that affluence. The cost of the clothes reflects the cost of affluence, and the precise means of showing affluence matter little.
And that rises an interesting question: Given that the war on drugs only benefits the drug cartels, are they the ones lobbying for it?
The folks lobbying for the war on drugs are the ones who think that the courts let go of too many guilty people.
That's a good point. For that matter, when an entangled particle is observed, it's counterpart's wavefunction collapses "instantaneously" but instantaneously in which reference frame? Only the reference frame of the observer?
That's only a problem in some interpretations (i.e. Copenhagen). In others, there is no collapse: the person observing the particle becomes entangled with the particle. If the observer is measuring the spin of a particle, then the observer has two states, having observed spin-up and having observed spin-down and these states are entangled with the spin state of the particle and also with the states of any other particles the observed particle is entangled with. In this view, what we call collapse is just the propagation of entanglement.
The professor who explained this view to me said you could also reverse a measurement, because the measurement affects all of the particles in the experimental apparatus which sends out photons which hit the researcher's eyes and in order to undo the measurement you would have to take all of this information dispersed through the system and find a way to make all of it interact so that you recreate the original state.
You say you reject moral imperatives, but you create moral imperatives of your own which you seek to impose on other people. You assign infinite value to freedom of information and berate people who value it differently. What is it that makes your view superior? You're taking issues with vast configuration spaces and reducing them down to one bit of information. Oversimplifying anything this much is stupid. You're trying to optimize one variable without considering what you're doing to all of the other variables.
I see in you an example of how people can become the mirror image of the things they hate. You're so eager to negate the things you hate that you just flip them in the other direction and end up creating a structure which shows flaws congruent to the original's flaws. Your opponents have certain problems that they want to avoid and you have certain problems that you want to avoid. Your opponents want to avoid their problems even if it means that the problems you want to avoid blow up. You want to avoid your problems even if it means that the problems they want to avoid blow up.
The only way that you're helping society is by acting as a counterweight against elements on the opposite extreme. But what would really be better would be for people on both ends to move a bit closer together and find some common ground.
I do expect plans for graceful failure to be in place, however even with an appropriate failure plan, are you going to be able to guarantee the original arrival time? There are a lot of logistical details that have to be rearranged.
Subject to the premise that they are taking appropriate measures to mitigate these problems and that that completely eliminating these problems is beyond possibility, I don't see a big problem with placing these sorts of problems in the same category as problems created by weather which seem to satisfy the same conditions.
I guess in my mind, a company offering a service for hire is providing a contract for factors they can control. If a company is offering a guarantee related to factors they can't control, then they're offering an insurance contract (possibly embedded within a service contract). I think a company offering a service should necessarily see to it that the service is done as far as they can control, but I don't think it is strictly necessary that they must include insurance for things they can't control.
Most schools have a canon that must be transversed to graduate. At a good school the canon is not random. It is meant to insure that the students speak the same vocabulary, have simliar assumptions, and similar methods to the professors. One might have a familiarity with a subject, but if there is little common ground in the way one talks about a subject, then the student is wasting his or her time. Two big reasons why people drop out of college is that they are bored with the introductory canon, or get frustrated because they tink they are in high school where teachers will work put big concepts in imprecise language that the students already knows, instead of requiring the student to learn the precise language used in the field.
I went to clown college. At my school the canon was a cannon, and you had to transverse it to without getting your floppy shoes hung up in it. You don't get bored with that sort of canon. You're too busy focusing on your landing and preparing for the segue into your next gag.
Notice-and-notice is better than a notice-and-takedown system. In notice-and-notice, the ISP simply passes any letters on to the subscriber, instead of taking down the content by default in response to the letter. The subscriber and the letter sender can then settle the issue. Notice-and-notice is harder, as far as I understand it, to abuse in the name of censorship than notice-and-takedown is.
I didn't post about what is ideal. I just said that I think what we have now, with respect to certain concerns, is better than what we had before.
I'm just saying that before DMCA the majority of ISPs were scared shitless of lawsuits and would freak out if they got a cease-and-desist relating to one of their subscribers and would take down content without any review process. The current procedure is less onerous than it used to be.
That people are currently using DMCA takedowns for silly things is irrelevant. All of these same people were using copyright related cease-and-desist letters for the same purposes before.
Overall, the text still hints at a global DMCA with notice-and-takedown.
I hate the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, but isn't "notice-and-takedown" an improvement over what we had before the DMCA when we called the notices "cease and desist letters" and there were no safe harbor provisions for ISPs and sites like YouTube?
My guess is that since all of the navigation buttons tend to be concentrated in the upper left, there's a good chance that anyone looking towards that direction is on their way out of your site.
I'm thinking that users would be less likely to follow an ad that interests them if they see it while still engaged by your site, but if they see it on the way out, well, they were looking for some place else to go anyway, right?
Because us mathematicians come up with these really simple problems, and when we tell you that your naive answer is wrong, you grab your ball, shove reality in our face, and run home...
I really love the people who expand at length about how the math people are wrong or irrelevant when, actually, these sorts of problems are really useful for helping to understand how distributions change shape as fragments of information are supplied.
Solving THAT particular problem that you mention may not necessarily be a threat to anonymity on the internet - but the US (and other western) governments, and their plans for the internet (including this) certainly are, and if you can't see that, you're clueless.
Establishing an infrastructure for allowing people to identify themselves in their dealings with commercial entities is a different thing from requiring people to identify themselves in online forums. Confusing the two is silly.
Let me disclose up front: I work with personal information.
Our current identity infrastructure blows goats. If you know someone's name, social security number, date of birth, and mother's maiden name, then for all practical purposes, you are that person.
Never mind that those identifiers are easy to obtain and never mind that the problem of verifying that a person is who they say they are can easily be solved using a web of trust model based on their relationships with durable entities (e.g. I have a record in my phone provider's database with my name and address, I have a record in my bank's database with my name and address, I pay rent each month under my name with that same address).
I shouldn't have to worry about some assclown who doesn't answer my phone or receive my mail getting a credit card linked to my credit score. This isn't a hard problem it just requires some infrastructure. And if you think solving this problem is a threat to anonymity on the internet, you're clueless.
Mankind made religion; differentiating between what we made and what we made of what we made isn't terribly relevant.
If you've studied enough mathematics, you begin to see there are ideas that mankind didn't create. For example, there's one relating to your user name:
“My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.” --Claude Shannon
You can set out to define new ideas, but find that you have only rediscovered something older which someone has already given a name. I equate religion with recognizing the deeper undercurrents of meaning that underly human thought and which have real implications for the universe. For example, through religion I feel I've come to an understanding of what error really is and its place in the universe.
Growing up, I couldn't understand religion and I viewed that as religion's problem. But I ultimately realized that was just because I wanted things to be easy. I thought it was silly to not boil it down into a yes or no question of believe or not believe. But what I've learned is that it is a sign of intellectual weakness to seek to simply accept or reject ideas rather than exploring their deeper complexity.
I responded to a quick swipe at religion with a quick swipe at dismissal of religion.
I did not believe in God as a child. However, now I have reasons sufficient to convince myself, but they are contingent on things I've learned over the course of my life. I do not believe I could deliver a convincing explanation of my beliefs to someone who has had different experiences from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we can have like buttons for ads.
Yay, Facebook is invading our TVs now.
Hulu has Yes/No buttons on ads with the question "Is this ad relevant to you?". I don't know if it actually does anything yet though.
Maybe the judge would accept a video essay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ymA_3MrXI&feature=related
I thought it was a graph theory exercise.
No, it doesn't brute force every possible combination. You can perform an operation on a superposition of all possible k-bit strings, but you can't actually get all of the 2^k outcomes of that operation. If you measure the result, you'll get one of the 2^k outcomes at random.
Basically you start from that superposition of k-bit strings, then you apply some operations to that state so that all of the the correct answers are in phase with each other and constructively interfere. Effectively, you can only apply this kind of speed-up if you can exploit the numerical properties of the problem to ensure that this happens.
Sir,
You also forgot to factor in the cost of money. I.e., if you banked the $5000 instead, you'd have that much more money at the end of the car ownership period. In 10 years at 7%, that $5000 becomes almost $10,000 (depending on how you compound the interest.)
Yeah... um.... I don't think you should be using 7% for personal finance TVM calculations right now.
http://finance.yahoo.com/bonds/composite_bond_rates
Here's a paraphrase of what the juror with the CCIE said:
As he read the situation, Childs was used to getting away with doing what he wanted because he had a weak boss who didn't interfere with him running things as he pleased. However, the situation started when Childs was told by the higher-ups that he was being reassigned and needed to give them the passwords and he responded by giving them fake passwords. The next day he sent an email saying something like "I'm sure you're all trying to get into the system right now."
By this account, it looks an awful lot like he tried to maintain the status quo in his position by the old joke that a difficult to maintain system is a form of job security. There was also the part where he fled to Nevada and withdrew $10,000, which is what got him designated as a flight risk and has kept him in jail for the duration of his trial.
He is right. I do not like it, but he is right.
I agree that it's inevitable, but I believe I have the solution. We should fight for legally protected pseudonymity which can only be breached by court order.
Cocaine is a plant product and only expensive because of an artificial government-enforced monopoly, the exact same as the dress. Remove such monopolies and both recreational substances and fancy dresses become cheap enough for everyone to afford.
To be honest, if drugs weren't artificially scarce, I think that fashion designers and other conspicuous consumption types would move on to things that are genuinely scarce. The entire thing is driven by displaying affluence and people buy the clothes to buy a share in that affluence. The cost of the clothes reflects the cost of affluence, and the precise means of showing affluence matter little.
And that rises an interesting question: Given that the war on drugs only benefits the drug cartels, are they the ones lobbying for it?
The folks lobbying for the war on drugs are the ones who think that the courts let go of too many guilty people.
I think you're underestimating the amount of cocaine that goes into creating a new dress design. They'll probably be lucky if they break even.
That's a good point. For that matter, when an entangled particle is observed, it's counterpart's wavefunction collapses "instantaneously" but instantaneously in which reference frame? Only the reference frame of the observer?
That's only a problem in some interpretations (i.e. Copenhagen). In others, there is no collapse: the person observing the particle becomes entangled with the particle. If the observer is measuring the spin of a particle, then the observer has two states, having observed spin-up and having observed spin-down and these states are entangled with the spin state of the particle and also with the states of any other particles the observed particle is entangled with. In this view, what we call collapse is just the propagation of entanglement.
The professor who explained this view to me said you could also reverse a measurement, because the measurement affects all of the particles in the experimental apparatus which sends out photons which hit the researcher's eyes and in order to undo the measurement you would have to take all of this information dispersed through the system and find a way to make all of it interact so that you recreate the original state.
You say you reject moral imperatives, but you create moral imperatives of your own which you seek to impose on other people. You assign infinite value to freedom of information and berate people who value it differently. What is it that makes your view superior? You're taking issues with vast configuration spaces and reducing them down to one bit of information. Oversimplifying anything this much is stupid. You're trying to optimize one variable without considering what you're doing to all of the other variables.
I see in you an example of how people can become the mirror image of the things they hate. You're so eager to negate the things you hate that you just flip them in the other direction and end up creating a structure which shows flaws congruent to the original's flaws. Your opponents have certain problems that they want to avoid and you have certain problems that you want to avoid. Your opponents want to avoid their problems even if it means that the problems you want to avoid blow up. You want to avoid your problems even if it means that the problems they want to avoid blow up.
The only way that you're helping society is by acting as a counterweight against elements on the opposite extreme. But what would really be better would be for people on both ends to move a bit closer together and find some common ground.
They did this while I was in high school ten years ago.
I do expect plans for graceful failure to be in place, however even with an appropriate failure plan, are you going to be able to guarantee the original arrival time? There are a lot of logistical details that have to be rearranged.
Subject to the premise that they are taking appropriate measures to mitigate these problems and that that completely eliminating these problems is beyond possibility, I don't see a big problem with placing these sorts of problems in the same category as problems created by weather which seem to satisfy the same conditions.
I guess in my mind, a company offering a service for hire is providing a contract for factors they can control. If a company is offering a guarantee related to factors they can't control, then they're offering an insurance contract (possibly embedded within a service contract). I think a company offering a service should necessarily see to it that the service is done as far as they can control, but I don't think it is strictly necessary that they must include insurance for things they can't control.
Most schools have a canon that must be transversed to graduate. At a good school the canon is not random. It is meant to insure that the students speak the same vocabulary, have simliar assumptions, and similar methods to the professors. One might have a familiarity with a subject, but if there is little common ground in the way one talks about a subject, then the student is wasting his or her time. Two big reasons why people drop out of college is that they are bored with the introductory canon, or get frustrated because they tink they are in high school where teachers will work put big concepts in imprecise language that the students already knows, instead of requiring the student to learn the precise language used in the field.
I went to clown college. At my school the canon was a cannon, and you had to transverse it to without getting your floppy shoes hung up in it. You don't get bored with that sort of canon. You're too busy focusing on your landing and preparing for the segue into your next gag.
Absolutely. If a part fails within its operating parameters, which is always a possibility, that's a circumstance outside of human control.
Of course, operating a part outside of its operating parameters, or defining unrealistic operating parameters, would be negligence.
Notice-and-notice is better than a notice-and-takedown system. In notice-and-notice, the ISP simply passes any letters on to the subscriber, instead of taking down the content by default in response to the letter. The subscriber and the letter sender can then settle the issue. Notice-and-notice is harder, as far as I understand it, to abuse in the name of censorship than notice-and-takedown is.
I didn't post about what is ideal. I just said that I think what we have now, with respect to certain concerns, is better than what we had before.
I'm just saying that before DMCA the majority of ISPs were scared shitless of lawsuits and would freak out if they got a cease-and-desist relating to one of their subscribers and would take down content without any review process. The current procedure is less onerous than it used to be.
That people are currently using DMCA takedowns for silly things is irrelevant. All of these same people were using copyright related cease-and-desist letters for the same purposes before.
I hate the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, but isn't "notice-and-takedown" an improvement over what we had before the DMCA when we called the notices "cease and desist letters" and there were no safe harbor provisions for ISPs and sites like YouTube?
My guess is that since all of the navigation buttons tend to be concentrated in the upper left, there's a good chance that anyone looking towards that direction is on their way out of your site.
I'm thinking that users would be less likely to follow an ad that interests them if they see it while still engaged by your site, but if they see it on the way out, well, they were looking for some place else to go anyway, right?
Because us mathematicians come up with these really simple problems, and when we tell you that your naive answer is wrong, you grab your ball, shove reality in our face, and run home...
I really love the people who expand at length about how the math people are wrong or irrelevant when, actually, these sorts of problems are really useful for helping to understand how distributions change shape as fragments of information are supplied.
If someone has two children, one of which is a boy, what's the probability that both their children are girls?
Solving THAT particular problem that you mention may not necessarily be a threat to anonymity on the internet - but the US (and other western) governments, and their plans for the internet (including this) certainly are, and if you can't see that, you're clueless.
Establishing an infrastructure for allowing people to identify themselves in their dealings with commercial entities is a different thing from requiring people to identify themselves in online forums. Confusing the two is silly.
Let me disclose up front: I work with personal information.
Our current identity infrastructure blows goats. If you know someone's name, social security number, date of birth, and mother's maiden name, then for all practical purposes, you are that person.
Never mind that those identifiers are easy to obtain and never mind that the problem of verifying that a person is who they say they are can easily be solved using a web of trust model based on their relationships with durable entities (e.g. I have a record in my phone provider's database with my name and address, I have a record in my bank's database with my name and address, I pay rent each month under my name with that same address).
I shouldn't have to worry about some assclown who doesn't answer my phone or receive my mail getting a credit card linked to my credit score. This isn't a hard problem it just requires some infrastructure. And if you think solving this problem is a threat to anonymity on the internet, you're clueless.
Mankind made religion; differentiating between what we made and what we made of what we made isn't terribly relevant.
If you've studied enough mathematics, you begin to see there are ideas that mankind didn't create. For example, there's one relating to your user name:
“My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word
was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von
Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two
reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics
under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody
knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.”
--Claude Shannon
You can set out to define new ideas, but find that you have only rediscovered something older which someone has already given a name. I equate religion with recognizing the deeper undercurrents of meaning that underly human thought and which have real implications for the universe. For example, through religion I feel I've come to an understanding of what error really is and its place in the universe.
Growing up, I couldn't understand religion and I viewed that as religion's problem. But I ultimately realized that was just because I wanted things to be easy. I thought it was silly to not boil it down into a yes or no question of believe or not believe. But what I've learned is that it is a sign of intellectual weakness to seek to simply accept or reject ideas rather than exploring their deeper complexity.
and circular ones.
Only fools confuse the two.
I responded to a quick swipe at religion with a quick swipe at dismissal of religion.
I did not believe in God as a child. However, now I have reasons sufficient to convince myself, but they are contingent on things I've learned over the course of my life. I do not believe I could deliver a convincing explanation of my beliefs to someone who has had different experiences from me.
There are two distinct things: religion and what mankind has made of religion.
Only fools confuse the two.